Search results

Framing Digital Mobility Gap: A Starting Point in the Design of Inclusive Mobility Eco-Systems.

Digital transport eco-systems worldwide provide great advantages to many but also carry a risk of excluding population groups that struggle with accessing or using digital products and services. The DIGNITY project (DIGital traNsport In and for socieTY) delves into the development of such eco-systems to deepen the understanding of the full range of factors that lead to disparities in the uptake of digital transport solutions in Europe. A starting point for developing digitally inclusive transport systems is to obtain state-of-the-art knowledge and understanding of where local transport eco-systems are in relation to the digital gap and digital mobility gap in terms of their policies, transport products and services, and population digital literacy. This chapter presents the methodology developed in the DIGNITY project to frame this digital gap, incorporating a self-assessment framework that may be used by public authorities to identify potential gaps in the development of local digital transport eco-systems. This framework is informed by results from customer journey mapping exercises that provide insights into the daily activities and trips of users, and larger scale surveys on digital technology access, use, attitudes and competence in the area. In the DIGNITY approach as a whole, the results from the framing phase are then used to inform subsequent work on bridging the digital gap through the co-creation of more inclusive policies, products and services. The chapter provides concrete results from the framing exercise in four DIGNITY pilot areas: Barcelona, Tilburg, Flanders and Ancona. The results clearly show that a digital transport gap exists in these areas, and that this is manifested in different ways in different local situations, requiring tailored approaches to address the gap.

Are We Satisfying the Right Conditions for the Mobility Transition?

Global climate agreements call for action and an integrated perspective on mobility, energy and overall consumption. Municipalities in dense, urban areas are challenged with facilitating this transition with limited space and energy resources, and with future uncertainties. One important aspect of the transition is the adoption of electric vehicles, which includes the adequate design of charging infrastructure. Another important goal is a modal shift in transportation. This study investigated over 80 urban mobility policy measures that are in the policy roadmap of two of the largest municipalities of the Netherlands. This analysis consists of an inventory of policy measures, an evaluation of their environmental effects and conceptualizations of the policy objectives and conditions within the mobility transitions. The findings reveal that the two municipalities have similarities in means, there is still little anticipation of future technology and policy conditions could be further satisfied by introducing tailored measures for specific user groups.

Behavioural perspective on car owners’ uptake of shared e-mobility

In the Interreg Smart Shared Green Mobility Hubs project, electric shared mobility is offered through eHUBs in the city. eHUBs are physical places inneighbourhoods where shared mobility is offered, with the intention of changing citizens’ travel behaviour by creating attractive alternatives to private car use.In this research, we aimed to gain insight into psychological factors that influence car owners’ intentions to try out shared electric vehicles from an eHUB in order to ascertain:1. The psychological factors that determine whether car owners are willing to try out shared electric modalities in the eHUBs and whether these factors are identical for cities with different mobility contexts.2. How these insights into psychological determinants can be applied to entice car owners to try out shared electric modalities in the eHUBs.Research was conducted in two cities: Amsterdam (the Netherlands) and Leuven (Belgium). An onlinesurvey was distributed to car owners in both cities inSeptember 2020 and, additionally, interviews wereheld with 12 car owners in each city.In general, car owners from Amsterdam and Leuven seem positive about the prospect of having eHUBs in their cities. However, they show less interest inusing the eHUBs themselves, as they are satisfied with their private car, which suits their mobility needs. Car owners mentioned the following reasons for notbeing interested in trying out the eHUBs: they simply do not see a need to do so, the costs involved with usage, the need to plan ahead, the expected hasslewith registration and ‘figuring out how it works’, having other travel needs, safety concerns, having to travel a distance to get to the vehicle, and a preferencefor ownership. Car owners who indicated that they felt neutral, or that they were likely to try out an eHUB, mentioned the following reasons for doing so:curiosity, attractive pricing, convenience, not owning a vehicle like those offered in an eHUB, environmental concerns, availability nearby, and necessity when theirown vehicle is unavailable.In both cities, the most important predictor determining car owners’ intention to try out an eHUB is the perceived usefulness of trying out an eHUB.In Amsterdam, experience with shared mobility and familiarity with the concept were the second and third factors determining car owners’ interest in tryingout shared mobility. In Leuven, pro-environmental attitude was the second factor determining car owners’ openness to trying out the eHUBs, and agewas the third factor, with older car owners being less likely to try one out.Having established that perceived usefulness was the most important determinant for car owners to try out shared electric vehicles from an eHUB, weconducted additional research, which showed that, in both cities, three factors contribute to perceived usefulness, in order of relevance: (1) injunctive norms(e.g., perceiving that society views trying out eHUBs as correct behaviour); (2) trust in shared electric mobility as a solution to problems in the city (e.g., expecting private car owners’ uptake of eHUBs to contributeto cleaner air, reduce traffic jams in city, and combat climate change); and (3) trust in the quality and safety of the vehicles, including the protection of users’privacy. In Amsterdam specifically, two additional factors contributed to perceived usefulness of eHUBs: drivers’ confidence in their capacity to try out anunfamiliar vehicle from the eHUB and experience of travelling in various modes of transport.Drawing on the relevant literature, the results of our research, and our behavioural expertise, we make the following recommendations to increase car users’ uptake of shared e-mobility:1. Address car owners’ attentional bias, which filters out messages on alternative transport modes.2. Emphasise benefits of (trying out) shared mobility from different perspectives so that multiple goals can be addressed.3. Change the environment and the infrastructure, as infrastructure determines choice of transport.4. For Leuven specifically: target younger car owners and car owners with high pro-environmental attitudes.5. For Amsterdam specifically: provide information on eHUBs and opportunities for trying out eHUBs.

Towards a core-set of mobility measures in ageing research

BACKGROUND: Mobility is a key determinant and outcome of healthy ageing but its definition, conceptual framework and underlying constructs within the physical domain may need clarification for data comparison and sharing in ageing research. This study aimed to (1) review definitions and conceptual frameworks of mobility, (2) explore agreement on the definition of mobility, conceptual frameworks, constructs and measures of mobility, and (3) define, classify and identify constructs.METHODS: A three-step approach was adopted: a literature review and two rounds of expert questionnaires (n = 64, n = 31, respectively). Agreement on statements was assessed using a five-point Likert scale; the answer options 'strongly agree' or 'agree' were combined. The percentage of respondents was subsequently used to classify agreements for each statement as: strong (≥ 80%), moderate (≥ 70% and < 80%) and low (< 70%).RESULTS: A variety of definitions of mobility, conceptual frameworks and constructs were found in the literature and among respondents. Strong agreement was found on defining mobility as the ability to move, including the use of assistive devices. Multiple constructs and measures were identified, but low agreements and variability were found on definitions, classifications and identification of constructs. Strong agreements were found on defining physical capacity (what a person is maximally capable of, 'can do') and performance (what a person actually does in their daily life, 'do') as key constructs of mobility.CONCLUSION: Agreements on definitions of mobility, physical capacity and performance were found, but constructs of mobility need to be further identified, defined and classified appropriately. Clear terminology and definitions are essential to facilitate communication and interpretation in operationalising the physical domain of mobility as a prerequisite for standardisation of mobility measures.

Innovating digitally for services: A review of innovation process literature focused on digital innovation and service innovation

While literature and practice acknowledge the potential of service innovation as well as digitally enabled innovation processes, the diverse innovation process literature lacks a process model which combines these two aspects. This systematic literature review aims at filling this gap by analysing innovation process theories and approaches with a specific focus on service and digital innovation. 25 conceptualisations of innovation processes were distilled and analysed in detail to present a ‘digital innovation process for services’ model which includes steps on three levels. Consequently, this literature review expands the current state-of-research and acts as the groundwork for further innovation research projects.

To use or not to use: shared mobility for emission-free cities